• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Catholics sue Obama over birth control mandate

You might want to investigate more. I don't see it as my job to derail this threat too much and educate on this subject. But finding the information isn't hard. As your here, I believe you must be computer literate. And as you live somewhere, there whould be some Catholics never you doing a lot of work.

Im not talking about catholic people im talking about the church itself and its priests. What have they done except rape little boys and tell african condoms make the HIV problem worse?
 
Im not talking about catholic people im talking about the church itself and its priests. What have they done except rape little boys and tell african condoms make the HIV problem worse?

It doesn't matter. They are a community and you talk about one without the other in terms of the good and bad the CHURCH has done. The people are the CHURCH.
 
Health care costs (and health insurance costs) have been rising rapidly for the last 50 years, neatly tracking with the additional burdens of government regulation and mandates. Every time the government makes something "free" the cost goes up.
Don't jerk me around on this issue. I was around before hospitals were required to take ER patients. I remember what it was like and I don't want to go back. I think if everyone saw people left in ER parking lots bleeding to death or their guts hanging out they would probably feel the same way.

I could also point out that many other countries have managed to control costs. How did they manage to do that when we can't? Fewer regulations? Less government interference? LOL!

Government programs never solve social problems, they only guarantee that those problems will continue. After all, if they did solve the problem, the bureaucrats would be out of work.
That's because all social problems are inherent to the human animal. Even Christ said "The poor you will always have with you". Even if you're not Christian you must realize that this was written down millenia ago and that nothing has changed about the human animal in all that time. Why is it you can't see this? Why is it that you think government, or at least society as a whole - however you see that expressed - isn't responsible for these people to some extent? Shouldn't government protect the weak, lame, sick, very young, and very old? Shouldn't it be the vehicle whereby we protect ourselves from things that can bring us harm?

((And I'm not talking about those that don't want to work. Obviously most people DO want to work because there have been times when our unemployment was down to 4% and the businessmen hated every month of it!.))

I'd bet most people that work at helping the poor would give up their job if they could eliminate poverty completely and for all time. Ditto for those that help the handicapped (eliminate the medical problem) and diseased (eliminate the disease) and so on. If you wouldn't do the same that says more about YOU and your social conscious than it does about bureaucrats.

Absolutely. The only cure for that is competition. Just look at how much money the property owners in Wisconsin are saving now that the school districts can buy health insurance from someplace besides the teachers union trust.
Sorry. The only logical result of full de-regulation and an open market is monopolies. A capitalist system has to have regulation just as every good engine needs a governor. Without it the engine runs wild, out of control, and blows up.

As for WI, only people like you would project results from thin air. Did you get that off Walker's website???
Your apparent belief - that everyone in private business is greedy, selfish and downright evil, while all bureaucrats are saintly and selfless public employees dedicated to serving the public interest - is nothing sort of astonishing.
I never claimed they were evil - only you and your kind use that kind of stupid language, ignorance at it's finest! I wouldn't call a capitalist evil any more than I would call a cheetah running down a gazelle evil.

Greedy and selfish, sure - it's what capitalism is all about! If you don't understand this or can't face the harsh reality of it then I suggest you ditch the green colored glasses and try again. Capitalism is fueled by greed and selfishness and it's why it works as well as it does. Business's ONLY goal is to make money. If a business isn't operating this way then someone should be fired.

Bureaucrats are paid to be impartial and serve the public. They're not saints but many do like helping others for whatever reason. For others it's just a job that usually pays less than private but has fewer office politics and more job security. Ask the police and fire fighters why they're there. It's the same for most public servants.

Good luck when you take your turn before the Death Panels.
It's amazing the bull**** some people will eat. You can always bow before your insurance company Gods and ask for insurance against the Death Panels. All good capitalists are money whores, they'll take the bet.
 
Last edited:
Those that want the Catholic hospitals to "give over and give in" to the gov't, also want the hospitals to continue to operate.
Let 'em shut their doors - or rather, simply stop taking government money. That's their call and they're welcome to take that course if they want.
 
They will not shut the doors over this. Silly to think they will, especially with the majority of Catholics in favor of BC.
 
They will not shut the doors over this. Silly to think they will, especially with the majority of Catholics in favor of BC.

I have to admit, most of the Catholic couples I know use some form of birth control.

I wouldn't count on the rank and file Catholics to back their church on this. And this comes from someone who is not a fan of ObamaCare (or RomneyCare for that matter).
 
Although individual catholics may do a great many things against church doctrine, that does not church policy make. This is about government forcing the church to ignore its own doctrine, not individuals. Funny how that separation thing only goes one way for libs...like everything libs are one way only.

J-mac

Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk 2
 
Im not talking about catholic people im talking about the church itself and its priests. What have they done except rape little boys and tell african condoms make the HIV problem worse?

I agree! HYPOCRITES.
 
Although individual catholics may do a great many things against church doctrine, that does not church policy make. This is about government forcing the church to ignore its own doctrine, not individuals. Funny how that separation thing only goes one way for libs...like everything libs are one way only.

J-mac

Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk 2

NO, it isn't. It has nothing to do with the Church. It has to with insurance, and people who are not clergy working at places that are not churches. They don't qualify to be seen different than anyone else. I'm sorry j, but you're wrong as to what this is about. There is no seroaration of hospitals and state. No separation of schools and state. That does not exist.
 
Well it's logic if I give you money that pays for your basic operating procedures and you take the money you would have spent on that into performing abortions I am helping pay for abortions.


By your logic....Giving my tax money to Catholic Hospitals, is allowing the Pope to order Filet Mignon for dinner tonight.
 
Don't jerk me around on this issue. I was around before hospitals were required to take ER patients. I remember what it was like and I don't want to go back. I think if everyone saw people left in ER parking lots bleeding to death or their guts hanging out they would probably feel the same way.

I could also point out that many other countries have managed to control costs. How did they manage to do that when we can't? Fewer regulations? Less government interference? LOL!

That's because all social problems are inherent to the human animal. Even Christ said "The poor you will always have with you". Even if you're not Christian you must realize that this was written down millenia ago and that nothing has changed about the human animal in all that time. Why is it you can't see this? Why is it that you think government, or at least society as a whole - however you see that expressed - isn't responsible for these people to some extent? Shouldn't government protect the weak, lame, sick, very young, and very old? Shouldn't it be the vehicle whereby we protect ourselves from things that can bring us harm?
((And I'm not talking about those that don't want to work. Obviously most people DO want to work because there have been times when our unemployment was down to 4% and the businessmen hated every month of it!.))

I'd bet most people that work at helping the poor would give up their job if they could eliminate poverty completely and for all time. Ditto for those that help the handicapped (eliminate the medical problem) and diseased (eliminate the disease) and so on. If you wouldn't do the same that says more about YOU and your social conscious than it does about bureaucrats.

Sorry. The only logical result of full de-regulation and an open market is monopolies. A capitalist system has to have regulation just as every good engine needs a governor. Without it the engine runs wild, out of control, and blows up.

As for WI, only people like you would project results from thin air. Did you get that off Walker's website???
I never claimed they were evil - only you and your kind use that kind of stupid language, ignorance at it's finest! I wouldn't call a capitalist evil any more than I would call a cheetah running down a gazelle evil.

Greedy and selfish, sure - it's what capitalism is all about! If you don't understand this or can't face the harsh reality of it then I suggest you ditch the green colored glasses and try again. Capitalism is fueled by greed and selfishness and it's why it works as well as it does. Business's ONLY goal is to make money. If a business isn't operating this way then someone should be fired.

Bureaucrats are paid to be impartial and serve the public. They're not saints but many do like helping others for whatever reason. For others it's just a job that usually pays less than private but has fewer office politics and more job security. Ask the police and fire fighters why they're there. It's the same for most public servants.

It's amazing the bull**** some people will eat. You can always bow before your insurance company Gods and ask for insurance against the Death Panels. All good capitalists are money whores, they'll take the bet.
In the first bolded statement you make the assumption that the poor being with us always, invites the premise that people should be forced to take care of them. In the second bolded statement you are half right, bureaucrats are paid to serve the public (generally). The problem with your philosophy on the public good is that you feel that everyone thinks that the solution is always to be found through a government mandate, and most likely though the federal govt. This is not the case. Many conservatives feel that certain things should be mandated by the fed govt, and those are spelled out in the US Constitution. Consequently that leaves all remaining things up to other methods of solution, that is state and local govts; and last but not least, private contracts/relationships/agreements (i.e., non-govt).
The latter is the preferred method.
 
Last edited:
Why is it that you think government, or at least society as a whole - however you see that expressed - isn't responsible for these people to some extent? Shouldn't government protect the weak, lame, sick, very young, and very old? Shouldn't it be the vehicle whereby we protect ourselves from things that can bring us harm?

Fine. Then let the government pay for it. To require individual hospitals and medical personnel to provide the services without compensation merely means that those costs have to be shifted to paying customers. That sort of Robin Hood Socialism is downright fraud, and is a major cause of the cost problem.

Sorry. The only logical result of full de-regulation and an open market is monopolies. A capitalist system has to have regulation just as every good engine needs a governor. Without it the engine runs wild, out of control, and blows up.

Fail. Monopolies (single supplier) and monopsonies (single buyer) are the absence of competition, and both are a Bad Thing. Even a nominally virtuous idea fails quickly if there is no competition to keep it in the real world. When the government decides what insurance policies must cover, and what drugs and procedures may be used, the government becomes no better than a private monopoly.

Capitalism is fueled by greed and selfishness and it's why it works as well as it does. Business's ONLY goal is to make money. If a business isn't operating this way then someone should be fired.

In a free market, any enterprise will fail unless it provides a good or service that people want to buy. That's why you don't see many Yugos on the road.

Bureaucrats are paid to be impartial and serve the public. They're not saints but many do like helping others for whatever reason.

Like GSA execs, for example?

For others it's just a job that usually pays less than private but has fewer office politics and more job security. Ask the police and fire fighters why they're there. It's the same for most public servants.

Do you include the KGB, SS and Stasi in your thinking?

It's amazing the bull**** some people will eat. You can always bow before your insurance company Gods and ask for insurance against the Death Panels. All good capitalists are money whores, they'll take the bet.

And it's amazing to me how some people can place all their faith in the good offices of the government, even after a visit to the DMV.
 
I hope you are right. At least no women will be Catholic.

No need to repeat a falsehood. See post #20, copied below:

"The Roman Catholic Church continues to see its membership increase in the U.S., while most Protestant churches are shrinking, according to an annual report by the National Council of Churches."

Catholic church growing, Baptist and mainline Protestant numbers decline | Believe It or Not | a Chron.com blog
 
Last edited:
Shame on them indeed. They cover viagra but won't cover contraception for women. I think the catholic church is just being antiwomen.

Of course they are. The Church's history with women says it all. And they continue their inane traditions to this day.

Did you know that the Catholic Church now allows some priests to be married? I'm sure any day now they will afford the same luxury to nuns. Not.

Seriously. If a Lutheran Minister, who is married, converts to Catholocism, he may stay married.

They are having a shortage of priests and nuns, so therefore they allow men to stay married. Do they allow women who are married to convert, become nuns and stay married? Of course not.
 
"The Roman Catholic Church continues to see its membership increase in the U.S., while most Protestant churches are shrinking, according to an annual report by the National Council of Churches."

Catholic church growing, Baptist and mainline Protestant numbers decline | Believe It or Not | a Chron.com blog

Of course they are. The Church's history with women says it all. And they continue their inane traditions to this day.

Did you know that the Catholic Church now allows some priests to be married? I'm sure any day now they will afford the same luxury to nuns. Not.

Seriously. If a Lutheran Minister, who is married, converts to Catholocism, he may stay married.

They are having a shortage of priests and nuns, so therefore they allow men to stay married. Do they allow women who are married to convert, become nuns and stay married? Of course not.

You don't seem to understand that nuns are already married. Really, you should watch that old Audrey Hepburn movie The Nun's Story.
 
NO, it isn't. It has nothing to do with the Church. It has to with insurance, and people who are not clergy working at places that are not churches. They don't qualify to be seen different than anyone else. I'm sorry j, but you're wrong as to what this is about. There is no seroaration of hospitals and state. No separation of schools and state. That does not exist.


We'll have to agree to disagree on this. I see it as governmental bullying plain and simple. Clearly, yourself and other libs have no regard for religious freedom, so you see it as a simple business decision. What ever you tell yourself to get through the night is not my concern. You think I am wrong, and I conversely think you are, but the fact of the matter is that BC is relatively cheap enough for people to afford already, it doesn't need to be forced through insurance coverage.

The other fact of this is that it is an election year distraction that is designed to take the attention off the failure of the Obama first term. And that is easy enough to see.

j-mac
 
Of course they are. The Church's history with women says it all. And they continue their inane traditions to this day.

Is anyone forcing you to be a Catholic? I don't think they are.

Did you know that the Catholic Church now allows some priests to be married? I'm sure any day now they will afford the same luxury to nuns. Not.

Seriously. If a Lutheran Minister, who is married, converts to Catholocism, he may stay married.

They are having a shortage of priests and nuns, so therefore they allow men to stay married. Do they allow women who are married to convert, become nuns and stay married? Of course not.

So start your own religion. Gheeze, what is it with libs that they feel that they have to meddle with everything to suit them, even if they have no intention of living by their own dictates?


j-mac
 
Fine. Then let the government pay for it. To require individual hospitals and medical personnel to provide the services without compensation merely means that those costs have to be shifted to paying customers. That sort of Robin Hood Socialism is downright fraud, and is a major cause of the cost problem.
I agree, the government should pay for it. What do you think UHC is all about?

Fail. Monopolies (single supplier) and monopsonies (single buyer) are the absence of competition, and both are a Bad Thing. Even a nominally virtuous idea fails quickly if there is no competition to keep it in the real world. When the government decides what insurance policies must cover, and what drugs and procedures may be used, the government becomes no better than a private monopoly.
I agree, monopolies are a bad thing, which is why no capitalist system can be without regulation.

The government shouldn't be a customer. We need a basic UHC to cover things like an annual check-up, broken bones, flu shots, emergency treatment and/or operations, and etc. The insurance companies should not be involved at all in these very basic services. After that if you want more coverage then knock yourself out. I'm sure Kaiser et al will be happy to take your money.

Like GSA execs, for example?

Do you include the KGB, SS and Stasi in your thinking?
Like Mozilo and Madoff, for example?

Do you include Enron, Countrywide, and Chevron in yours?

And it's amazing to me how some people can place all their faith in the good offices of the government, even after a visit to the DMV.
It's amazing to me how some people can place all their faith business with Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, and Bank of America apparently carrying on like Oct 2008 never happened.
 
It's amazing to me how some people can place all their faith business with Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, and Bank of America apparently carrying on like Oct 2008 never happened.

The same thing can be said about the government, for the very same event.
 
In the first bolded statement you make the assumption that the poor being with us always, invites the premise that people should be forced to take care of them. In the second bolded statement you are half right, bureaucrats are paid to serve the public (generally). The problem with your philosophy on the public good is that you feel that everyone thinks that the solution is always to be found through a government mandate, and most likely though the federal govt. This is not the case. Many conservatives feel that certain things should be mandated by the fed govt, and those are spelled out in the US Constitution. Consequently that leaves all remaining things up to other methods of solution, that is state and local govts; and last but not least, private contracts/relationships/agreements (i.e., non-govt).
The latter is the preferred method.
If you wish to use the latter, YOUR preferred, method then by all means do so. That can be accomplished even now, so why don't you get it done - instead of just talking about it - and save the rest of us some money? Any benefits you give to the poor can be reported as income (for them) and their public allotment will be adjusted downward accordingly. If you give them enough then Uncle Sam won't give them any. The rest of us taxpayers would be more than happy to see less government money spent on the poor - so you just jump on that whenever you'd like. :)
 
The same thing can be said about the government, for the very same event.
It's not from lack of trying. Bills have been entroduced to change things. Why don't you write your Congressmen and bitch? I did.


On the other hand, I doubt Goldman would even open your e-mail or letter.
 
Back
Top Bottom